Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MADAN versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Madan v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 27529 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9803 (18 May 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27529 of 2006

Madan

Vs.

State of U.P. & Ors.,

**********

Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to shift the Alopi Bagh "Chungi" sub-shop of private respondent no. 5, Sri Krishna Ji Vishwakarma to its original site.

We have heard Sri U.N. Sharma learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Sri C.L. Pandey learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5.

The averments made in the writ petition indicate that the petitioner was granted licence of retail country liquor shop at Sobatiya Bagh, Allahabad for the year 2002-03. The licence of this shop had been renewed for the current year i.e. 2006-07. The petitioner was also granted licence of a sub-shop at Tularam Bagh in the year 2002-03 and the licence of this sub-shop has been renewed for the current year i.e. 2006-07.

Respondent no. 5 Sri Krishna Ji Vishwakarma was granted licence of two sub-shops at Alopi Bagh "Chungi" for the year 2002-03 and Nagvasuki Road for the year 2006-07. The licence of the sub-shop at Alopi Bagh "Chungi" had been renewed up to the year 2006-07. The boundaries of this sub-shop at Alopi Bagh "Chungi" were changed in the year 2004-05 and they have again been changed in the current year i.e. 2006-07.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that a detailed representation has been filed by the petitioner before the Excise Commissioner, Allahabad and also before the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority since the new location of the shop of respondent no. 5 is contrary to the rules.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has suggested that the proper authority to decide such a dispute is the District Excise Officer, Allahabad who has been arrayed as respondent no. 4 and, therefore, if the petitioner files a proper representation ventilating all the grievances as are sought to be raised in the present petition then the same shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law.

In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned Standing Counsel, we dispose of this petition with a direction that in the event the petitioner files representation before the District Excise Officer, Allahabad, the same shall be considered expeditiously after hearing the petitioner and respondent no. 5.        

Date: 18.5.2006

NSC


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.